There's more at work than just a desire to conform, of course. Even in the first run of the Milgram experiments, 35% of the 'teachers' refused to deliver the final 450-volt shock.
And I think Dave Grossman's book On Killing helps explain even more. The basic premise of this book is that we have an innate resistance to killing. That in WWII the majority of soldiers didn't even fire their weapons, or if they did they (deliberately?) aimed too high or too low and failed to hit their targets.
That changes to military training, like shooting at human silhouettes instead of bullseyes, helped make our forces more effective in Vietnam.
This book is interesting on all sorts of levels, and it's well worth reading. Especially when you remember that most soldiers wind up fighting for their comrades-in-arms, the people in their unit... far more than any ideology or concern about the folks back home. (Those things might get them to enlist in the first place, but once their in a combat situation many wind up more concerned with making sure everyone in their unit gets back home alive.)
Iirc, he gave one of the best explanations for why/how something like the SS could act the way it did (and why so many dictators try to make their followers complicit in their crimes).
Basically, since we have an innate resistance to killing if a wannabe leader can get their followers into a situation where they're pressured to commit an atrocity (and peer pressure is a powerful force, that desire not to let our comrades down, not to appear weak or cowardly) many of them will. Just like with the Milgram experiment. And then something curious happens, because most people don't want to admit that they did something wrong... so they'll suppress any feeling of wrongdoing, and try to justify it. Often once that first act is done the ones who did it become the most dedicated and loyal followers. After all, if Hitler (or whoever) was wrong then how could they possibly have justified killing the people they did?
Grossman pointed out that prisoners of war in combat zones didn't get PTSD the way soldiers did, and implied it's because they weren't in any position where they were obligated to fight and kill others. (Though this general statement doesn't cover people like the Jews in the concentration camps. It's like facing someone's direct hatred is just as traumatizing or more).
Soldiers have often tried to dehumanize their enemy, as though calling the 'Charlie' or 'raghead' and acting as though they're subhuman somehow makes it easier to believe you're not actually killing another human being.
And - I get it. I mean, I served in the military. I've had to ask myself if I'd be willing to fight and kill if I had to - if you're not willing to ask yourself that I don't think you should join, tbqh. And when you see people as people, I'm not entirely sure what my answer would be. Or even what answer I prefer. Like I know all the big reasons why we have wars, and all that. And I do believe in protecting what's important, and that the right to self-defense should never be denied. And even though I mostly have a blue team/defense mentality, I also know that sometimes the best defense is a good offense. (I'm not aggressive by default, and in the military where Type A personalities are rampant I've sometimes felt the lack, but I also think it means I'm more deliberate in how and when I choose to act, and sometimes that's better.)
Anyways. I've asked myself that question, and I think I know the answer, but I have not ever been in the position where I actually had to choose. And I'm okay with that.
I'm okay with never having to face that, though when I was younger... well. I never actively wanted to hurt anyone, but it also seemed like you're not really a soldier, you haven't really done your job if you've never faced combat, you know? And even after facing combat, it's like... okay. I've heard mortar fire. I've seen tracer rounds go by. I guess I've heard a 'shot fired in anger', though I've never had to actually do the shooting myself. It sometimes makes me feel like I'm not really a combat veteran, like I didn't have to face the harsh realities that our infantry or armor guys have had to.
But, you know... I think I'm okay with that.
To bring this back to the Holocaust - some Germans were put in situations which, given the material I've covered so far in the post, we shouldn't be surprised were pretty much guaranteed to turn ordinary people into war criminals. Unless they have strong principles and a powerful presence of mind, that is.
It's not enough, though. That may explain the SS, and some of the police forces, but it doesn't explain the citizens who may not have directly participated in mass murders... but helped enable them all the same.
As I mentioned in the previous post, there's some question about just how much they knew. Again, Reader Beware, what follows is more based on my personal experiences than any historical scholarship.
I've written before about the deaths of CPT Esposito and 1LT Allen in Tikrit, and the allegations that SSG Martinez did it. SSG Martinez was acquitted and I don't really know the details of the case. He's also apparently passed away in 2017, so I won't go into whether or not he's guilty. I bring it up more because I met him. He was our supply sergeant, and I drew my weapon from him, and got socks, and various other things as needed. So it came as a shock to think that I might have personally known a murderer. (Again, this isn't about whether he did it or not... it's about realizing, all over again, that a murderer doesn't necessarily appear with fangs, claws, and devil horns.)
I think there's an initial tendency towards disbelief. Towards thinking that this sort of thing only happens elsewhere. That some evil villain behaves like that, not the ordinary people we meet.
I think that's also how various abusers get away with what they do... people just don't want to believe that someone they know would do something like that.
Even though people have different relationships with different people, even though the person who jokes around and is friendly with me might be hurtful towards someone else (like the kids who teased my sister in grade school, but wrote something nice in my yearbook).
I'm not saying you should suspect everyone around you, or automatically believe the worst of people you know. But... if you know someone over a long period of time, if you interact with them on a regular basis, I think it's hard for them to consistently hide who they truly are.
It's like... like when you break up with someone. Even if it seems like a surprise at the time, if you look back you can often see the warning signs... it's just that you either dismissed them, or didn't know how to recognize them for what they were.
And we very, very rarely see people for who they are. We get these images in our heads, and we project them onto the other person, and we tend to get angry and/or dismiss anything that contradicts that image.
And so we dismiss the warning signs that someone might have done something wrong. We don't want to think that about someone we know. Someone who's been perfectly nice to us... or maybe even not so nice, but not any worse than anyone else.
And so I imagine that there was probably some nice Germany family. Back then it was probably more traditional, where the man worked (if he wasn't in the Army) and the woman stayed home to take care of the kids (or perhaps, due to the war effort, worked in a factory). And between a long day at work, and coming home to fix dinner...and make sure little Hans does his homework, and doesn't get into a fight with his sister Emilia... he or she might have heard a disturbing story. Maybe someone talked about seeing a train go by, and their glimpse of bodies packed into the train car. Or they saw smoke rising from one of the nearby work camps, and heard some rumor of what it meant.
Maybe it made them a little uncomfortable. Maybe it felt a little... wrong. But then Hans was pulling on Emilia's hair, and it was time to serve dinner, and the feeling was soon forgotten.
And I think Dave Grossman's book On Killing helps explain even more. The basic premise of this book is that we have an innate resistance to killing. That in WWII the majority of soldiers didn't even fire their weapons, or if they did they (deliberately?) aimed too high or too low and failed to hit their targets.
That changes to military training, like shooting at human silhouettes instead of bullseyes, helped make our forces more effective in Vietnam.
This book is interesting on all sorts of levels, and it's well worth reading. Especially when you remember that most soldiers wind up fighting for their comrades-in-arms, the people in their unit... far more than any ideology or concern about the folks back home. (Those things might get them to enlist in the first place, but once their in a combat situation many wind up more concerned with making sure everyone in their unit gets back home alive.)
Iirc, he gave one of the best explanations for why/how something like the SS could act the way it did (and why so many dictators try to make their followers complicit in their crimes).
Basically, since we have an innate resistance to killing if a wannabe leader can get their followers into a situation where they're pressured to commit an atrocity (and peer pressure is a powerful force, that desire not to let our comrades down, not to appear weak or cowardly) many of them will. Just like with the Milgram experiment. And then something curious happens, because most people don't want to admit that they did something wrong... so they'll suppress any feeling of wrongdoing, and try to justify it. Often once that first act is done the ones who did it become the most dedicated and loyal followers. After all, if Hitler (or whoever) was wrong then how could they possibly have justified killing the people they did?
Grossman pointed out that prisoners of war in combat zones didn't get PTSD the way soldiers did, and implied it's because they weren't in any position where they were obligated to fight and kill others. (Though this general statement doesn't cover people like the Jews in the concentration camps. It's like facing someone's direct hatred is just as traumatizing or more).
Soldiers have often tried to dehumanize their enemy, as though calling the 'Charlie' or 'raghead' and acting as though they're subhuman somehow makes it easier to believe you're not actually killing another human being.
And - I get it. I mean, I served in the military. I've had to ask myself if I'd be willing to fight and kill if I had to - if you're not willing to ask yourself that I don't think you should join, tbqh. And when you see people as people, I'm not entirely sure what my answer would be. Or even what answer I prefer. Like I know all the big reasons why we have wars, and all that. And I do believe in protecting what's important, and that the right to self-defense should never be denied. And even though I mostly have a blue team/defense mentality, I also know that sometimes the best defense is a good offense. (I'm not aggressive by default, and in the military where Type A personalities are rampant I've sometimes felt the lack, but I also think it means I'm more deliberate in how and when I choose to act, and sometimes that's better.)
Anyways. I've asked myself that question, and I think I know the answer, but I have not ever been in the position where I actually had to choose. And I'm okay with that.
I'm okay with never having to face that, though when I was younger... well. I never actively wanted to hurt anyone, but it also seemed like you're not really a soldier, you haven't really done your job if you've never faced combat, you know? And even after facing combat, it's like... okay. I've heard mortar fire. I've seen tracer rounds go by. I guess I've heard a 'shot fired in anger', though I've never had to actually do the shooting myself. It sometimes makes me feel like I'm not really a combat veteran, like I didn't have to face the harsh realities that our infantry or armor guys have had to.
But, you know... I think I'm okay with that.
To bring this back to the Holocaust - some Germans were put in situations which, given the material I've covered so far in the post, we shouldn't be surprised were pretty much guaranteed to turn ordinary people into war criminals. Unless they have strong principles and a powerful presence of mind, that is.
It's not enough, though. That may explain the SS, and some of the police forces, but it doesn't explain the citizens who may not have directly participated in mass murders... but helped enable them all the same.
As I mentioned in the previous post, there's some question about just how much they knew. Again, Reader Beware, what follows is more based on my personal experiences than any historical scholarship.
I've written before about the deaths of CPT Esposito and 1LT Allen in Tikrit, and the allegations that SSG Martinez did it. SSG Martinez was acquitted and I don't really know the details of the case. He's also apparently passed away in 2017, so I won't go into whether or not he's guilty. I bring it up more because I met him. He was our supply sergeant, and I drew my weapon from him, and got socks, and various other things as needed. So it came as a shock to think that I might have personally known a murderer. (Again, this isn't about whether he did it or not... it's about realizing, all over again, that a murderer doesn't necessarily appear with fangs, claws, and devil horns.)
I think there's an initial tendency towards disbelief. Towards thinking that this sort of thing only happens elsewhere. That some evil villain behaves like that, not the ordinary people we meet.
I think that's also how various abusers get away with what they do... people just don't want to believe that someone they know would do something like that.
Even though people have different relationships with different people, even though the person who jokes around and is friendly with me might be hurtful towards someone else (like the kids who teased my sister in grade school, but wrote something nice in my yearbook).
I'm not saying you should suspect everyone around you, or automatically believe the worst of people you know. But... if you know someone over a long period of time, if you interact with them on a regular basis, I think it's hard for them to consistently hide who they truly are.
It's like... like when you break up with someone. Even if it seems like a surprise at the time, if you look back you can often see the warning signs... it's just that you either dismissed them, or didn't know how to recognize them for what they were.
And we very, very rarely see people for who they are. We get these images in our heads, and we project them onto the other person, and we tend to get angry and/or dismiss anything that contradicts that image.
And so we dismiss the warning signs that someone might have done something wrong. We don't want to think that about someone we know. Someone who's been perfectly nice to us... or maybe even not so nice, but not any worse than anyone else.
And so I imagine that there was probably some nice Germany family. Back then it was probably more traditional, where the man worked (if he wasn't in the Army) and the woman stayed home to take care of the kids (or perhaps, due to the war effort, worked in a factory). And between a long day at work, and coming home to fix dinner...and make sure little Hans does his homework, and doesn't get into a fight with his sister Emilia... he or she might have heard a disturbing story. Maybe someone talked about seeing a train go by, and their glimpse of bodies packed into the train car. Or they saw smoke rising from one of the nearby work camps, and heard some rumor of what it meant.
Maybe it made them a little uncomfortable. Maybe it felt a little... wrong. But then Hans was pulling on Emilia's hair, and it was time to serve dinner, and the feeling was soon forgotten.
No comments:
Post a Comment